IS CARBON

CAPTURE ON
SHIPS FEASIBLE?

A R EP O R T FR O M T HE
O I L AND G A S CLIM A T E INIT IA T IVE
N O VEM B ER 2021
CONTENTS
Scope of the challenge 3

Introduction 4

Ship selection 4

Carbon capture technology 5

System design and integration 6

Performance analysis 8

Economic analysis 9

Meeting IMO’s 2030 targets 10

Conclusion 12

References 12

Tables
Table 1: A
 ssessed criteria for selecting the candidate vessel from
among the three options. 4
Table 2: A
 ssessed criteria for evaluating the most appropriate
carbon capture technology. 5
Table 3: F ixed and variable operating expenses. 10
Table 4: R
 unning costs and returns if aiming for a 25-30% avoidance rate
to meet IMO’s 2030 target. 11

Figures
Figure 1: S
 chematic showing major components of the carbon capture system. 6
Figure 2: P
 rofile of a Stena Bulk Suezmax tanker with carbon capture system,
liquefaction system and storage tanks superimposed. 7
Figure 3: C
 omparison of CO2 emissions from the reference case and the
50% and 90% capture rate cases. 8
Figure 4: E
 stimated component costs for the carbon capture system analyzed
in cases 2 and 3. 9
Figure 5: T
 otal capital expenditure estimates for a 50% and 90% carbon
capture system installed on a Suezmax vessel. 9

2
Scope of the challenge

The transportation sector contributes 24% of global energy-related greenhouse

gas emissions. Around 10% of that total comes from international deep-sea
shipping. Because these ships operate outside of national coastal boundaries,
they are governed by regulations negotiated and agreed upon by member
states through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations
agency. In 2018 the IMO introduced a long-term vision to eliminate emissions
from international shipping and particularly to cut emissions by 2050 to 50% or
less of those in the baseline year of 2008.

Given the anticipated growth in shipping traffic, this goal is ambitious and will
require the deployment of a number of technologies. While improved efficiency,
propulsion aids and biofuels are expected to contribute towards the goal,
additional measures will be necessary to ensure success. In addition to the use of
hydrogen, ammonia and synthetic E-fuels as replacement fuels, carbon capture
has emerged as a potential solution under investigation by several organizations.
The basic concept is quite simple: take carbon capture technology currently in
use in stationary applications and adapt it to remove carbon dioxide emissions
from the exhaust gases of the large internal combustion engines that are heavily
relied upon by the fleet.

To test this concept, in 2020 OGCI and Stena Bulk jointly conducted a study with
TNO, a research institute based in the Netherlands,2-5 and their subcontractors
Conoship and CarboTreat. The aim of the study was to assess energy balances,
fundamental physics and integration challenges.

3
Introduction

In their latest report, the IPCC states that meeting the ambition of the Paris Agreement to limit
warming this century to 2.0°C requires immediate large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions1. To achieve this, a wide portfolio of existing and new technologies must be deployed. This
is especially the case for hard-to-abate industrial sectors, including marine shipping and aviation
in transportation. While long-haul flights are likely to focus primarily on sustainable aviation fuels,
marine shipping has more flexibility to explore unique options. One such option is the adaptation of
stationary carbon capture technology to mobile applications. The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative and
Stena Bulk recently partnered on a feasibility study to explore the potential of capturing carbon from
the exhaust gases of the large internal combustion engines that large ships predominantly use for
propulsion.

Ship selection

Stena Bulk operates a range of vessels, with the majority of the fleet concentrating on large bulk fluids
such as crude oil and chemicals. Due to varying load requirements, the ships have an array of sizes and
employ main propulsion engines of suitable power output. Although the primary fuels used by these
ships are traditional heavy fuel oils and distillates, Stena Bulk does operate several liquified natural gas
(LNG) powered vessels as well. Consequently, the team was able to assess three different ship and fuel
combinations where Stena Bulk would make suitable data available. The three combinations were a
medium range oil/chemical tanker, a Suezmax crude oil tanker (both running on heavy fuel oil), and
an LNG carrier running on LNG.

When evaluating these options, it became clear that both detailed technical specifications and
strategic considerations would play a role in the selection process. Among the technical details that
were examined, key parameters such as sufficient deck space, the presence of potential fuel impurities
like sulfur and the availability of heat energy in the exhaust gas were prioritized, while important strategic
variables like representative fuels and relative industry impact also carried substantial weight. Table 1
captures these criteria and compares them across the three vessel types.

Table 1: Assessed criteria for selecting the candidate vessel from among the three options

MEDIUM RANGE SUEZMAX LNG

EVALUATION CRITERION
TANKER TANKER CARRIER

Main engine type 7.2MW 2-stroke 15.7 MW 2-stroke 3x 3.8MW 4-stroke

Primary fuel Heavy fuel oil Heavy fuel oil Natural gas

Space availability Yes Yes Yes

Exhaust gas heat availability Average Poor Good

Sulfur content/fuel impurities High High Low

Representative of wider fleet Yes Yes No

Impact of success High High Low

From a technical perspective, the LNG carrier offered the simplest and most straightforward path to
a feasible carbon capture system because it uses an engine type that delivers sufficient waste heat
in the exhaust gas, uses a fuel with no impurities and offers infrastructure on board that could be
beneficial when liquifying and storing the captured carbon dioxide. However, a system that proved
feasible on this type of ship may not be easily adapted to other ships, so the relative impact of success
would be low.

4
The other two options would likely prove more technically challenging, but a feasible system could
be more readily adapted to similar ship types that represent the vast majority engaged in deep sea
international shipping. Between the two, the Suezmax was expected to have less waste heat available.
Since energy is required to operate any carbon capture system, more waste heat that can be
sufficiently recovered reduces the need to seek supplemental sources of energy. Considering all these
criteria, the team chose the Suezmax because it offered the highest potential impact if successful,
even though it represented the greatest technical challenge .

Carbon capture technology

Similar to the process for selecting the candidate ship type, multiple post-combustion carbon capture
technologies were considered for the analysis. Table 2 lists the four leading technologies along
with key criteria used for assessing them. To assist in the selection process, the team identified key
assumptions driven by type of ship, potential carbon dioxide off-loading sites and a projected timeline
to demonstration. If the concept proved feasible, a likely next step would include a demonstration
phase, so a technology’s maturity was an important factor. Chemical absorption was viewed as
having the highest maturity and immediately became the leading candidate.

A second concern involved the purity of the carbon dioxide delivered by the process. High purity
levels reduce the energy and cost demands placed on a carbon dioxide liquefaction unit and ensure
compatibility with existing carbon sequestration sites where purity level requirements typically must
exceed 95% (with many requiring >99%)6. Capture rate was also a consideration, but played a relatively
minor role since all of the technologies were capable of delivering reasonably high rates. Because the
ship was fueled with heavy fuel oil, any capture system either needed to be insensitive to impurities
such as sulfur compounds or have a way to manage them before they reached the capture unit.

Table 2: Assessed criteria for evaluating the most appropriate carbon capture technology

EVALUATION CRITERION CHEMICAL MEMBRANE CRYOGENIC

ADSORPTION
FOR CANDIDATE SHIP ABSORPTION SEPARATION SEPARATION

Technology
High Low Low Medium
maturity

CO2 purity (est.)

99% Purity and capture rate are 99.9%
from process
linked. In general, CO2 purity is
CO2 capture rate low (80% for adsorption, 60% for
90-99% membranes) 90-99%
potential (est.)

potentially SOx,
Sensitivity to impurities NOx & SOx H2O, NOx and SOx NOx & SOx
H2O

Given these assumptions, the two most compatible technologies were cryogenic separation and
chemical absorption. Although it offered competitive capture rates and purity levels, the cryogenic
approach was expected to demand high rates of energy to bring the exhaust gas down to -140°C and
remove the carbon dioxide at a relatively low 4% concentration. In the end the chemical absorption
process using a liquid amine solution was selected as the best fit for the Suezmax due to its high
maturity level, delivered purity compatible with off-loading sites and energy demand estimated to be
lower than the cryogenic approach. Since many ships are fitted with exhaust scrubbers, it was assumed
that use of such a system would limit exposure to impurities like sulfur oxides to a manageable level.

5
 Although chemical absorption was seen as the best fit for the Suezmax feasibility study, this should not
be misinterpreted to mean that other technology approaches are lacking merit. On the contrary, other
technical approaches are likely to have benefits and drawbacks that make them more suitable for
projects and vessels with different prioritization criteria. A thorough evaluation of these considerations
and an assessment of best fit to various vessels was beyond the scope of this study.

System design and integration

The Suezmax tanker employs a 15.7MW MAN B&W 6S70ME-C8 two-stroke engine as its main propulsion
unit, three 1MW Yanmar diesel generators for auxiliary power and a boiler system for crude oil transfer.
All of these units contribute to carbon dioxide emissions from the ship so the carbon capture system
must be designed to handle their collected exhaust gas. However, it was also expected that sizing and
evaluating the system would require an iterative process, since the carbon capture system needs both
electrical power supplied by the auxiliary engines and heat energy derived from either the engines or
the boiler.

This requirement for energy creates a type of feedback loop where attempts to increase the capture
rate may lead to additional fuel consumption and additional emissions that need to be captured.
The net reduction in emissions is then calculated by subtracting the extra emissions needed to run
the system from the overall amount captured and comparing that difference to the original level
generated under normal operation. This net reduction is sometimes referred to as the amount “avoided”
to distinguish it from the gross amount of carbon dioxide that the capture system is removing from
the exhaust stream.

Figure 1: Schematic showing major components of the carbon capture system

Cleaned Engine Exhaust Gas

exhaust gas Gaseous CO2 to
Solvent
liquefaction process
Captured CO2
Water wash
Water
Blower
Flash

Exhaust Absorber Stripper

gas inlet Quench
HTF inlet
Main HEX

WHRU Reboiler

The conceptual design (Figure 1) was derived from stationary carbon capture applications and
assumes that the system begins downstream of any waste heat recovery unit connected to the
engines. The first stage of the system uses water quenching to lower the temperature of the exhaust
gas to approximately 40°C, a temperature at which carbon dioxide is readily absorbed in the next
stage by monoethanolamine (MEA), a first-generation amine solution widely used in carbon capture
applications. A blower compensates for back-pressure induced by the overall system to avoid
negative performance impacts on the two-stroke propulsion engine. The cooled exhaust gas then
enters the absorber column where it is exposed to the amine sorbent and carbon dioxide is absorbed
into the solution. Most of the volatile amine carried out of the absorber is removed from the exhaust
gas by the water wash and returned to the column.

6
The carbon dioxide-enriched amine is then pumped out the bottom and sent through a heat
exchanger to scavenge energy from the carbon dioxide-lean amine returning from the stripper. At the
bottom of the stripper the temperature of the amine solution is increased to ca. 120ºC at two bar. The
reboiler raises part of the amine solution to the boiling point in order to introduce sufficient vapor to
strip the carbon dioxide from the solvent. Concentrated carbon dioxide and water vapor exit the top of
the stripper and are then cooled and flashed to remove residual water and amine, which is returned
to the main loop. The almost pure gaseous carbon dioxide is then sent to a final quench station where
remaining impurities are removed and finally to a liquefaction system where it is compressed, liquefied
and pumped into holding tanks at a pressure of 16 to 20 bar.
To evaluate the potential integration of the system onto the ship, a full-scale case with an assumed
capture rate of 50% and a 21-day length of voyage was considered and sized accordingly. Figure 2
shows the approximate size and location of the main components of the system with the quench,
absorber and stripper columns mounted on the stern near the engine exhaust stack and the
liquefaction system and liquid carbon dioxide storage tanks located on deck forward of the bridge,
but aft of midship. The columns ranged in diameter from one metre to four metres and were placed
near the centre line of the ship and kept to a maximum height under 18 metres to avoid causing blind
spots for lighting and radar. Visibility from the bridge was not expected to be compromised.

Figure 2: Profile of a Stena Bulk Suezmax tanker with carbon capture system, liquefaction system
and storage tanks superimposed

The mass of the system was estimated to be just over 2,500 t when fully loaded with carbon dioxide.
This represented the maximum deadweight capacity lost to the system. The combined volume of the
tanks was estimated at 1,500 m3 and space was easily found on deck. For other vessel types, such as
container ships, the size and location of the storage tanks will be of much greater importance due
to more limited deck space. Of greater concern for the tanker was the potential impact on stability,
but the metacentric height was calculated to only decrease from 5.2 m to 5.0 m and was therefore
deemed insignificant. Safety concerns revealed by a HAZID analysis primarily focused on human
exposure to the solvent (MEA) and the concentrated carbon dioxide, both of which were identified as
manageable through appropriate engineering and safety protocols. Hazards related to liquefaction
and storage of the carbon dioxide were addressable through rules listed in the International Code of
the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk.

7
Performance analysis

Since the target capture rate directly affects the energy demand from the system, three distinct
capture rates were considered during the performance evaluation phase: 1) the maximum amount of
carbon dioxide capturable when no additional heat energy is needed from the engines to drive the
absorption and desorption processes; 2) 50% of all carbon dioxide captured from the exhaust gas;
and 3) 90% of all carbon dioxide captured from the exhaust gas. To simplify the calculations, the ship
was assumed to be traveling at a set speed and an engine power of 75% of maximum continuous
rating (MCR). The energy analysis included all electricity needed to operate the compressors, pumps,
supplemental exhaust gas blower, heat energy delivered by the main propulsion engine, auxiliary
engines, and oil-fired boilers.

Using only the available heat energy from the main propulsion engine, case 1 showed that
approximately 8% of the carbon dioxide emissions could be captured. This relatively low figure
hints at the lack of available waste heat energy that can be scavenged from the efficient,
slow-speed two-stroke engine. Achieving any level of carbon capture beyond this point would require
additional heat sources coming primarily from the auxiliary engines and oil-fired boilers.

Figure 3 shows that the analysis of cases 2 and 3 bore this out. As the capture rate increased, the
amount of energy needed increased. This could only be supplied through excess fuel burned in the
auxiliary engines and oil-fired boilers. Compared with the reference case, this amounted to 22% and
53% more fuel consumed for cases 2 and 3, respectively. The red line shown for each case represents
the final carbon dioxide avoidance, or the overall reduction in carbon dioxide exiting the exhaust stack,
once the emissions from the additional fuel burned were considered.

Figure 3: Comparison of CO2 emissions from the reference case and the 50% and 90% capture rate
cases

10000

5000
CO2 flow (kg/hr)

Oil-fired boiler
0 Auxiliary engine

Main engine

-5000 Effective emissions

-10000
Reference Case 2 - 50% Case 3 - 90%
vessel capture capture

Low exhaust gas temperatures from the main propulsion engine primarily drive the need for additional
fuel consumption in the auxiliary engines and boiler. However, these engines were designed and
optimized to deliver high efficiency and not to support the implementation of a carbon capture system.
Consequently, measures to recalibrate engine performance or optimize the waste heat recovery units
to complement a carbon capture system have not been explored, so the figures shown here may be
assumed to be a worst-case estimate.

8
Economic analysis

For any commercial endeavor, capital and operating expenses determine the viability of any
proposed technical solution, so it is important to provide initial estimates for these numbers. The
capital expenditure (capex) estimate was built by analyzing the current individual costs for the main
components needed in the carbon dioxide removal, liquefaction and storage processes. Figure 4
shows a breakdown of these equipment costs based on information provided by AspenPlus’s Aspen
Capital Cost Estimator v11. The storage tanks, although not complex, contribute significantly to the
costs. Volume production to meet widespread industry demand would likely lead to reductions in
these component costs, but the magnitude of such reductions is difficult to assess. Component costs
are not the only contributor to overall capital expenditures and Figure 5 shows the estimated costs
when engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) and contingency costs are included.

Figure 4: Estimated component costs for the carbon capture system analyzed in cases 2 and 3

20

18
Installed equipment costs (€ in millions)

16

14 Blower

12 Pumps

10 Heat exchangers

Storage tanks
8
Columns and vessels
6
Compressors
4

0
Case 2 Case 3
50% capture 90% capture

Figure 5: Total capital expenditure estimates for a 50% and 90% carbon capture system installed
on a Suezmax vessel

30

25
Total process costs (€ in millions)

20
Initial solvent fill

Process continencies (30%)

15
EPC costs

Storage capex
10
Liquefaction capex

Capture capex
5

0
Case 2 Case 3
50% capture 90% capture

9
Operating expenses are equally important and the impact of the excess fuel burned can be substantial.
Table 3 provides a breakdown of estimated fixed and variable operating expenses for cases 2 and
3. The variable expenses associated with producing the additional energy for the capture system
dominate and the total numbers add nearly 13% and 25% to a reference vessel’s existing operating
expenses.

Table 3: Fixed and variable operating expenses

FIXED AND VARIABLE OPERATING

CASE 2 (50%) CASE 3 (90%)
EXPENSES € (in thousands)/YEAR

Labor 100 100

Maintenance 153.6 153.6

Insurance 120.4 120.4

Overhead 18.4 18.4

Heat demand (excess fuel) 474 1,187

Electricity 157 299

Solvent replacement 15 30

Total 938.4 1,808.4

A key element missing from this analysis is the port-side infrastructure necessary to off-load and
process the captured carbon dioxide. Although some ports and locations are equipped to handle
shipments of carbon dioxide for industrial use and large-scale recycling and sequestration operations,
most ports are not set up to manage this process. The capital investments needed to build such
infrastructure have not been analyzed here and any associated costs have not been factored into the
estimated numbers.

Meeting IMO’s 2030 targets

Given the above analysis and to frame the results better within the context of the shipping industry,
a case was specifically constructed to evaluate how the system could work if used to meet the
impending IMO carbon dioxide target for 2030. This target would require ships like the current Suezmax
to reduce their emissions by about 25% relative to today. To ground the results even further, several
assumptions were made to understand what the impact might be under real operating conditions
(when, for example, the engine is not operated at its 75% MCR loads continuously), with actual sailing
profiles considered, with discharge and sequestration sites assumed to be immature or not readily
accessible, and with the investment or retrofit amortized over different numbers of years. Put another
way, the figures presented in Table 3 together with the overall capital expenditure were converted
into the added daily running costs and the $/tCO2 cost of avoidance that shipowners could use to
compare mobile carbon capture to other options to meet 2030 (or other) targets.

10
Table 4: Running costs and returns if aiming for a 25-30% avoidance rate to meet IMO’s 2030 target

If capture system If used 50% 50% usage until

is always used of the time 2025, increasing to
when sailing when sailing 100% by 2030

TOTAL CO2 (MT/Y)

CO2 produced 35,540 35,540 35,540

Emitted/vented 24,891 30,216 28,299

Captured 10,649 5,325 7,241

% captured (avg. over lifetime) 30% 15% 20%

Total investment over lifetime (12 years) $18.5m $17m $17.6m

CHANGES TO RUNNING COSTS ($/D)

Total extra running costs 4,727 4,151 4,358

- of which due to fixed costs 4,232 3,903 4,022

- of which due to variable costs 495 248 337

- of which due to sequestration 438 219 298

$/tCO2 175 297 232

OVER 20 YEARS LIFETIME

Total extra running costs $/d 4,101 3,524 3,732

$/tCO2 153 254 201

OVER 20 YEARS WITH A SUBSIDY OF $35/TCO2

Total extra running costs $/d 3,080 3,014 3,038

$/tCO2 106 207 153

OVER 20 YEARS WITH A SUBSIDY OF $35/TCO2 AND 50% REDUCTION IN CAPEX

Total extra running costs $/d 1,898 1,905 1,903

$/tCO2 65 131 96

Given that a 25-30% capture rate requires less additional heat to run the system compared with the
50% or 90% cases (2 and 3), the largest contributor to daily running expenses becomes the amortization
schedule for the capex and fixed operational costs over the ship’s remaining life (12 years, in the first
scenario towards the top half of Table 4). Thus, if retrofitted to a ship with around 12 years of potential
trading life left, daily costs go up by about 20-30%, mostly due to capex. This could be reduced further
if the owner operates the ship for 20 years, receives a tax subsidy for the avoided carbon dioxide and/
or can reduce capex substantially.

11
Conclusion

We used a large oil tanker as a test case to adapt carbon capture technology for use onboard ships.
The process appears to be technically feasible with no major barriers emerging during the course of
the study. Since the oil tanker was powered by a highly efficient, two-stroke engine with low energy
availability in the exhaust gas, the test case represents one of the most challenging applications
and leads to an increased consumption of fuel to power auxiliary engines and an oil-fired boiler that
delivers the necessary energy to run the capture system.

Optimization of the engine and/or waste heat recovery units to be more compatible with a carbon
capture system may reduce the need for additional fuel consumption. Vessels using engines with
more waste heat availability may prove more feasible with the system as designed. Developments in
carbon capture technology that reduce the carbon dioxide separation energy would have a significant
impact on energy demand and this should be a primary focus for research and development teams.

Although we demonstrated technical feasibility, capital and operating expenses remain high. Capex
is driven by the relatively high costs of the storage tanks, compressors and columns, while the cost
of excess fuel burned is the highest contributor to operating expenses. These costs are a substantial
hurdle to deployment and cost reductions in several key areas would be needed for the long-term
viability of the technology. Commodity prices for captured carbon dioxide may offset some of these
costs, but this is difficult to assess without clear guidance on regulations governing carbon pricing.

As the marine industry sets course for 2030 with an ambition to meet the IMO targets for greenhouse
gas emissions, other carbon reduction technologies are likely to remain more attractive. As those
more attractive solutions are deployed and the benefits realized, more aggressive solutions will
need to be considered to meet long-term decarbonization goals. It may be more appropriate to
compare marine carbon capture to other solutions requiring long-term investment and infrastructure
build-out, such as ammonia and hydrogen. By 2030 more mature networks and infrastructure to
process and sequester large volumes of carbon dioxide are expected to be in place. Utilizing those
systems for the off-loading of carbon dioxide captured on ships may prove attractive. Regardless, if
the costs of marine carbon capture can be sufficiently addressed, it could play an important role in a
multi-pronged effort to meet the challenge of decarbonizing the marine industry.

References

1. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021.
2. Ros JA, et al., editors. Post-combustion Carbon Capture and Storage on LNG Fuelled Ships. 15th International Naval
Engineering Conference. 6-8 October 2020.
3. Ros J, et al., editors. Update on post-combustion carbon capture and storage on LNG fuelled vessels. Proceedings of
the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference. 15-18 March 2021.
4. Monteiro J. CO2ASTS – carbon capture, storage and transfer in shipping: A technical and economic feasibility study:
Public Concise Report. 2020.
5. Feenstra M, et al. Ship-based carbon capture onboard of diesel or LNG-fuelled ships. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control. 2019;85:1-10.
6. Dugstad A, Svenningsen G. Variation in CO2 Composition - Defining Safe Operation Windows. Recommendations on
CO2 Specifications for ALIGN Partners. ALIGN-CCUS. 13 January 2020.

12
WHAT IS THE OIL AND GAS CLIMATE INITIATIVE?

The OGCI is a CEO-led initiative that aims to accelerate the

industry response to climate change. OGCI member companies
explicitly support the Paris Agreement and its aims.
As leaders in the industry, accounting for almost 30% of global
operated oil and gas production, we aim to leverage our
collective strength and expand the pace and scope of our
transitions to a low-carbon future, so helping to achieve net zero
emissions as early as possible.

Our members collectively invest over $7B each year in low carbon
solutions. OGCI Climate Investments was set up by members
to catalyze low carbon ecosystems. This $1B+ fund invests in
technologies and projects that accelerate decarbonization in oil
and gas, industry and commercial transport.

oilandgasclimateinitiative.com

O UR ME MBE R C OMPANIE S